Nadine Dorries has finally gone too far

Last night Nadine Dorries smeared me as a stalker in a room full of people, and went on to repeat that smear online via her Twitter feed (giving me no choice but to publish the following evidence and confront the smear lest it explode beyond hope of retraction today). She made specific allegations about my stalking her, Anne Milton and Patrick Mercer, none of which she can support with any evidence, because none of it happened as she described.

I’m quite angry that the Chair** allowed me to be branded a stalker (and a liar when she damn well knew better). I’m also peeved that it was her self-promoting elaborations about my role there that led to the later misunderstanding with the audience, but the main issue is the outright lies by Nadine Dorries.

(*Some of this I did not hear, as I was wearing headphones at the time.)

Please take the time to read it in full. I hope it settles the broadcast issue at least so far as establishing there was no attempt to deceive on my part (not that this would excuse Dorries’ false accusations in any way). I am so grateful that I not only have video evidence, but witnesses who aren’t aligned with (or related to) Nadine Dorries; in my experience, some of these people can be rather… selective about what they reveal.

My thanks to Adam and everybody else who spoke up today.

–

UPDATE (11:20pm) – I don’t mean to gush, but I’m quite overwhelmed by this post from Keith Badham.

UPDATE (6 May) – Several aspects well noted by Richard Bartholomew, who tried and failed to have Nadine Dorries act responsibly. This might very explain one of the police complaints she’s talking about. If so, she’s got a bloody cheek:

If she’s seriously been portraying the actions of Charlie Flowers as evidence of my stalking her, I am not looking forward to having to explain that to people; Charlie Flowers claims to be attacking me because I’m stalking her. Even thinking it into a sentence gives me a headache.

–

**UPDATE (26 Oct) – Correspondence recently published in Mid Bedfordshire newspapers makes the position of the Chair much clearer to me. Subsequently, I would like to publicly pull back on previous comments I have made about the Chair of this event. The situation was more complicated than I was able to appreciate at the time; it is now obvious to me that the Chair had to take into account the vindictive nature of Dorries and her allies, and the potential fallout from keeping Dorries on a tighter leash than this safe-seat MP thought she deserved. Even after having the meeting set at a date she wanted, arranging to leave early, and having the leeway to make her extraordinary outbursts (twice) before storming out even earlier than her arranged departure time, Dorries still accused the organisers of this event of treating her unfairly, and has subsequently become hostile to their organisation to an extent that risks significant detriment to the democratic process in Flitwick and the surrounding area. For the avoidance of doubt; I cleared my actions with the Chair before this public meeting, but was initially invited by constituents. There was nothing like the collusion that Dorries imagines, and she has no cause to be hostile with any of the organisers of this event. If anything, she owes them an apology.

11 Responses to "Nadine Dorries has finally gone too far"

Odd. When the chair says "record for our own purposes and nothing else" and that the recording "will just be for the […] members and a limited version for our website", and you give your assurance that is the case, you genuinely thought that you'd implied you'd post it to YouTube and broadcast it live?

By mikkimoose May 5, 2010 - 1:51 pm

hmm, she (the organiser) does clearly state 'Tim Ireland is recording the event', 'it's just for us', 'he's just a resident'. She then repeats this saying "Tim is recording the meeting for us", etc.She then says "What I would ask Tim to do is purely record the programme for our own purposes and for nothing else." "It would just be for the (unintelligible) Club members, and it would be an edited version for our purposes".So you do look a little disingenuous, in that she thinks you are local firstly, and secondly that you are claiming now that you had no idea that while she very specifically said that the *recording* was for their eyes only you didn't think to mention that the event was being broadcast live…For the meeting to be being broadcast live over the internet is perhaps not what some of those in attendance might expect, and they (more so than Dorries) had a right to be informed if they were going to appear on the internet as a result of being at the meeting.As it happens she made a fool of herself prior to the actual questioning so it wasn't really necessary to broadcast it….Nice to see the BNP chap supporting you ;-). (Oops, not BNP, seems to be English Democrat I guess).

The Chair appears to have been elaborating on my role from the very beginning, until what we initially agreed was barely recognisable. A lot of it came down to her implying (for some reason) that I was formally part of the event. I must admit to not picking up on these details at the time. My mind was on other things. But I explained that I was recording and broadcasting from the outset, and even showed the Chair the recording camera and the broadcast camera *and* shown that the broadcast that was already going on before I hit 'record' on the high res camera.The Chair was, it must be said, well out of her depth, which contributed to the confusion on all fronts. I didn't have any of these problems when broadcasting from Godalming hustings

By mikkimoose May 5, 2010 - 2:50 pm

hmm, I just watched the ustream thing; seems nobody in the audience is visible, still seems to contradict the 'no recording' promise?

When she extracted that assurance (with an altered deal Darth Vader would be proud of) I was promising not to participate in the meeting, which I took to be the main concern.

By soobrickay May 5, 2010 - 10:07 pm

Tim,First off, a disclaimer. I hold no definitive opinion on the rights/wrongs of either your or Ms Dorries' actions since I only know the facts based on your and Adam Croft's posts and the video. Further, I'm far from a legal expert, merely a student. Nonetheless, I hope the following is useful just as a pointer for you on the oh so wonderful English law of defamation.There are three necessary (not sufficient) conditions to satisfy for a court to find a defendant guilty of defamation:(a) a defamatory statement was made(b) the defamatory statement referred to the claimant(c) a third party heard/read the defamatory statement(b) and (c) would be easily satisfied in the instant case.On (a), Dorries' statement that you "stalk" her and other people would appear to be defamatory – an allegation of stalking would diminish your reputation in the eyes of right-thinking members of society, per the test in Sim v Stretch [1936] 2 All ER 1237.Now for the slightly more involved part.Defamatory remarks made in speech are temporary, and therefore slander (not libel). Slander usually requires proof of special damage to be actionable. However, slanderous accusations of imprisonable offences are actionable per se, Gray v Jones [1939] 1 All ER 798. Stalking would appear to fall under the following definition:"(1) A person must not pursue a course of conduct—(a) which amounts to harassment of another, and(b) which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other."s 1(1) Protection from Harassment Act 1997. Such conduct may attract a prison sentence of up to six months, s 2(2) PHA 1997.Based on the above, I would suggest that a court would probably hold that a clearly made verbal claim that “X stalks people”, directed at X in front of an audience is defamatory, and actionable per se.Dorries would likely raise three possible defences. First, justification, i.e. that the remarks were true. This would be a complete defence. Obviously I am not in a position to judge the facts of the case. Second, qualified privilege, i.e. the statement was made to protect a public/private interest. However, qualified privilege defences will fail if the statement was made in malice. Malice means that the defendant did not believe what s/he was saying, or that they acted with an improper motive. Anger has been held as an example of an improper motive, e.g. in Angel v HH Bushell & Co [1968] 1 QB 813. Third, fair comment, i.e. that the defendant's statement was one of opinion only. I am (even more) unsure of how the courts would treat this defence in these circumstances. The distinction between comment and fact is clearly difficult – was the word "stalk" used figuratively, e.g.? Regardless, it is important to note that for this defence to succeed, the opinion must be based on true facts.All in all, it would appear to be a reasonably strong case.You should note that ss 2-4 Defamation Act 1996 set out a procedure by which defendants may make an offer of amends to the claimant. This offer would be to make a suitable apology and pay costs as agreed. Non-acceptance of such an offer shifts the burden onto the claimant – s/he must now show that the defendant did _not_ act innocently when making the original statement.Good luck!Yours,Soobrickay

By soobrickay May 5, 2010 - 11:07 pm

ps, as per my tweet, obviously actually taking on an action would be SERIOUSLY time and money consuming and probably pointless. But the points of law might help if you have to get mediaeval on Dorries', err, arse

Thanks for taking the time, Soobrickay.I need to call Nadine on these obvious lies in a way that will compel her to back her claims with evidence or withdraw them and apologise. Civil action remains a strong option though, as you note, money and time are an issue.

"For the meeting to be being broadcast live over the internet is perhaps not what some of those in attendance might expect, and they (more so than Dorries) had a right to be informed if they were going to appear on the internet as a result of being at the meeting."It was a public event. It related to democratic processes related to Flitwick and Ampthill and therefore broadcasting it live was a "public service" – especially to those with an interest in local politics yet were unable to attend the meeting in person.Dorries was the one who made the affair into an issue with her histrionics and amateur dramatics – demanding that Tim should leave.The woman – without going into issues of her suspicious expenses claims or stuffing money down her bra – is a joke. Dressed like the Man from Delmonte in drag, getting her facts wrong (and defaming Tim by saying he lived in Croydon) acting like a prima donna who would put Violet Elizabeth Bott to shame with her "either he goes or I go" posturing, and flouncing off with her wobbling arse looking like two blancmanges having a fight to the death inside her white trousers – if Nadine Dorries is the best that mid-Bedfordshire can select to be its MP, I would say the constituency is doomed.Look out on the horizon for signs of circling vultures, flying skeletal horsemen, clouds of locusts or swarms of Jehovah's Witnesses carrying placards saying "We warned you!"…..

Tim, If Anne Milton knows that what Dorries has implied ie that you have "stalked" one Anne Milton other than herself, and you have not: then Anne Milton she should come forward and tell all concerned that Dorries has told a lie. You have the video and I noticed that she kept hiding behind the man sitting next to her. It looked to me as if Dorries became hysterical. She wanted you out of there in case the audiance sat up and took notice. The chair person did not help either, and no wonder Dorries kept tapping her for attention it was all so obvious Tim. I have kept a number of her stories from her blog page and I am amazed Cameron has not found her an embarrassment. She hated Caroline Flint had a shouting match in the tea room and replied to Caroline Flint—"you don't fly at me or I'll nut you" She hated Bercow, she said of the late Lord Mayor of Bedford he had BO. She has done her share of smearing but in a very clever way. I would seek legal advice Tim .Dorries sued over the so called smear emails and what I recall of that saga more than anything is—she named herself and had the media knocking on her mothers door Easter 2009 now how did they know she would be there ? I am very suspicious the way she wriggles out of soooo many situations that should be investigated. The folk in Mid Beds need to look back over her blogs and discover just what depth there is to her and I would say "very little' except an ego so big she actually thinks she can get away with anything !!No one loves her photo in the news more than HER but she should go and hide somewhere now after that display she put on. Childish behaviour is putting it mildly.